DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1, 2, 5-7, 9, 10 and 12-15 remain pending
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding claim 1, the applicant argues the claim comprises computational analysis beyond human capability, is directed to a practical application and is significantly more than the abstract idea (Remarks, page 4-6). However, under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), numerical integration, signal filtering and model-based approximation can be performed by the human mind. In Signal filtering, engineers often use pen and paper to derive the necessary coefficients or transfer functions; in model-based approximation uses pen and paper for Mathematical Approximation, Simplified Neural Network Training, Machine Learning Techniques like Maximum Likelihood Estimation (MLE) for Gaussian distributions can be derived and calculated with pencil and paper. The applicant uses a processor to perform these calculations, which according to MPEP 2106.05, is viewed as an additional element that does not add significantly more than the abstract because it is a well-understood, routine, conventional activity in monitoring structural abnormality. The same analysis applies to the sensor installation step, which is a well-known, established practice known as Structural Health Monitoring (SHM). It uses sensors like accelerometers, strain gauges, and GPS to collect real-time data on vibrations, loads, and deformations, allowing engineers to evaluate structural integrity, identify damage, and manage maintenance. Accordingly, applicant’s arguments regarding the sensor deployment, real-time data acquisition and computational modeling offering significantly more is not persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
PNG
media_image1.png
930
645
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
681
881
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claims 1, 2, 5-7, 9, 10 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites a measurement method for causing a processor to execute a process, the method comprising executing on the processor the steps of: installing a plurality of acceleration sensors at a plurality of observation points of a superstructure of a bridge, respectively, the plurality of acceleration sensors being configured to detect an acceleration of each of a plurality of observation points: generating first displacement data based on the acceleration as a response to an action on the plurality of observation points by a plurality of regions of a railroad vehicle moving on the superstructure of the bridge, the acceleration corresponding to data output from the plurality of acceleration sensors, the plurality of acceleration sensors being disposed at the plurality of observation points on the superstructure, respectively; generating observation information including an approach time and an exit time of the railroad vehicle with respect to the superstructure; calculating a deflection amount of the superstructure by a plurality of cars of the railroad vehicle based on an approximation formula of a deflection of the superstructure, the observation information, and environmental information including a dimension of the railroad vehicle and a dimension of the superstructure generated in advance; calculating an approach time and an exit time of each of the plurality of cars with respect to the superstructure based on the observation information and the environmental information; calculating time intervals divided by a plurality of times obtained by sorting the approach times and the exit times of the plurality of cars with respect to the superstructure by time; calculating an amplitude amount of the first displacement data in each of the time intervals; calculating an amplitude amount of the deflection amount of the superstructure by each of the plurality of cars in each of the time intervals; calculating weighting coefficients to the plurality of cars assuming that a sum of products of the amplitude amounts of the deflection amounts of the superstructure by the plurality of cars in the time intervals and the weighting coefficients to the plurality of cars is equal to the amplitude amount of the first displacement data in the respective time intervals; calculating a first deflection amount of the superstructure by the railroad vehicle using a sum of products of the weighting coefficients to the plurality of cars and the deflection amounts of the superstructure by the plurality of cars; calculating a static response when the railroad vehicle moves on the superstructure based on the first displacement data and the first deflection amount; providing measurement data including the weighting coefficients with respect to the plurality of cars and the static response; and monitoring the railroad train and determining an abnormality of the superstructure based on the measurement data.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. The claim recites a method; therefore it is a process.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim recites the limitations of generating first displacement data. The generation limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. Nothing in the claim precludes the generating step from practically being performed in the human mind. The claim encompasses mentally generating first displacement data as part of the method.
The claim recites the limitations of generating observation information. The generation limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. Nothing in the claim precludes the generating step from practically being performed in the human mind. The claim encompasses mentally generating observation information as part of the method.
The claim recites the limitations of calculating a deflection amount. The limitation of calculating a deflection amount, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. Nothing in the claim precludes the deflection amount calculation step from practically being performed in the human mind. The claim encompasses mentally calculating a deflection amount as part of the method.
The claim recites the limitations of calculating an approach time and exit time and time intervals. The limitation of calculating an approach time and exit time and time intervals, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. Nothing in the claim precludes the calculating an approach time and exit time and time intervals from practically being performed in the human mind. The claim encompasses mentally calculating an approach time and exit time and time intervals as part of the method.
The claim recites the limitations of calculating an amplitude amount of the first displacement data in each of the time intervals and calculating an amplitude amount of the deflection amount of the superstructure by each of the plurality of cars in each of the time intervals. The limitations calculating an amplitude amount of the first displacement data in each of the time intervals; calculating an amplitude amount of the deflection amount of the superstructure by each of the plurality of cars in each of the time intervals, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. Nothing in the claim precludes calculating an amplitude amount of the first displacement data in each of the time intervals; calculating an amplitude amount of the deflection amount of the superstructure by each of the plurality of cars in each of the time intervals from practically being performed in the human mind. The claim encompasses mentally calculating an amplitude amount of the first displacement data in each of the time intervals; calculating an amplitude amount of the deflection amount of the superstructure by each of the plurality of cars in each of the time intervals as part of the method.
The claim recites the limitations of calculating weighting coefficients to a respective car of the plurality of cars. The limitation of calculating weighting coefficients to a respective car of the plurality of cars, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. Nothing in the claim precludes calculating weighting coefficients to a respective car of the plurality of cars from practically being performed in the human mind. The claim encompasses mentally calculating weighting coefficients to a respective car of the plurality of cars as part of the method.
The claim recites the limitations of calculating a first deflection amount. The limitation of calculating a first deflection amount, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. Nothing in the claim precludes the first deflection amount calculation step from practically being performed in the human mind. The claim encompasses mentally calculating a first deflection amount as part of the method.
The claim recites the limitations of calculating a static response. The limitation of calculating a static response, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. Nothing in the claim precludes calculating a static response from practically being performed in the human mind. The claim encompasses mentally calculating a static response as part of the method.
The claim recites the limitations of providing measurement data. The limitation of providing measurement data, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. Nothing in the claim precludes providing measurement data from practically being performed in the human mind. The claim encompasses mentally providing measurement data as part of the method.
The claim recites the limitations of monitoring the railroad train and determining an abnormality. The limitation of monitoring the railroad train and determining an abnormality, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. Nothing in the claim precludes monitoring the railroad train and determining an abnormality from practically being performed in the human mind, because the claim encompasses mentally monitoring the railroad train and determining an abnormality.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
NO. The claim recites two additional element: a processor and installing a plurality of acceleration sensors at a plurality of observation points of a superstructure of a bridge.
The additional element of an acceleration sensor does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it is well known in the art to use an acceleration sensor to observe and generate data for a structure.
Similarly, installing a plurality of acceleration sensors at a plurality of observation points of a superstructure of a bridge to detect acceleration is well known in the art.
The processor is recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing data (calculating amounts, values, intervals, coefficients, etc and providing data). This generic processor limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
NO. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element in the claim amounts to no more than using a generic acceleration sensor to observe and generate data for a structure. Thus it is not enough to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Similarly for the processor, mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. The claim is ineligible.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 2 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 2 is further recites the element(s) “wherein the amplitude amount is an average value or an integrated value.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 2 does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 5 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 5 is further recites the element(s) “wherein calculating of the static response further includes performing filter processing on the first displacement data to calculate second displacement data reduced in vibration component; performing filter processing on the second deflection amount to calculate a third deflection amount reduced in vibration component; approximating the second displacement data with a linear function of the third deflection amount to calculate a coefficient of a linear term and a constant term of the linear function; calculating a fourth deflection amount based on the coefficient of the linear term, the constant term, and the third deflection amount; calculating an offset based on the constant term, the third deflection amount, and the fourth deflection amount; and adding a product of the coefficient of the linear term and the second deflection amount to the offset to calculate the static response.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 5 does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 6 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 6 is further recites the element(s) “calculating a matrix representing whether the plurality of cars are moving on the superstructure in the time intervals based on deflection amounts of the superstructure by the plurality of cars in the time intervals.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 6 does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 7 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 7 is further recites the element(s) “wherein the superstructure is an upper structure of the bridge.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 7 does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 9 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 9 is further recites the element(s) “wherein the approximation formula of the deflection of the superstructure is a formula based on a structural model of the superstructure.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 9 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because this limitation(s) is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 10 depends on claim 9 that depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 10 is further recites the element(s) “wherein the structural model is a simple beam supported at both ends of the superstructure.”, which is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 10 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because this limitation(s) is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 12 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 12 is further recites the element(s) “wherein the superstructure has a structure in which BWIM (Bridge Weigh in Motion) works.”, which is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 12 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because this limitation(s) is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Regarding claim 13, the claim recites A measurement device comprising: a plurality of acceleration sensors configured to generate first displacement data based on an acceleration as a response to an action on a plurality of observation points by a plurality of regions of a railroad vehicle moving on a superstructure of a bridge, the acceleration corresponding to data output from the plurality of acceleration sensors, the plurality of acceleration sensors being installed at the plurality of observation points on the superstructure, respectively; a memory configured to store a program; a processor configured to execute the program so as to: generate observation information including an approach time and an exit time of the railroad vehicle with respect to the superstructure; calculate a deflection amount of the superstructure by a plurality of cars of the railroad vehicle based on an approximation formula of a deflection of the superstructure, the observation information, and environmental information including a dimension of the railroad vehicle and a dimension of the superstructure generated in advance; to calculate an approach time and an exit time of each of the plurality of cars with respect to the superstructure based on the observation information and the environmental information; calculate time intervals divided by a plurality of times obtained by sorting the approach times and the exit times of the plurality of cars with respect to the superstructure by time; calculate an amplitude amount of the first displacement data in each of the time intervals; calculate an amplitude amount of the deflection amount of the superstructure by each of the plurality of cars in each of the time intervals; calculate weighting coefficients to the respective plurality of cars assuming that a sum of products of the amplitude amounts of the deflection amounts of the superstructure by the plurality of cars in the time intervals and the weighting coefficients to the plurality of cars is equal to the amplitude amount of the first displacement data in the respective time intervals; calculating a first deflection amount of the superstructure by the railroad vehicle using a sum of products of the weighting coefficients to the plurality of cars and the deflection amounts of the superstructure by the plurality of cars; calculating a static response when the railroad vehicle moves on the superstructure based on the first displacement data and the first deflection amount; providing measurement data including the weighting coefficients with respect to the plurality of cars and the static response; and monitoring the railroad train and determining an abnormality of the superstructure based on the measurement data.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. The claim recites a method; therefore it is a process.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim recites the limitations of generating first displacement data. The generation limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. Nothing in the claim precludes the generating step from practically being performed in the human mind. The claim encompasses mentally generating first displacement data as part of the method.
The claim recites the limitations of an observation information generation step of generating observation information. The generation limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. Nothing in the claim precludes the generating step from practically being performed in the human mind. The claim encompasses mentally generating observation information as part of the method.
The claim recites the limitations of calculating a deflection amount. The limitation of calculating a deflection amount, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. Nothing in the claim precludes the deflection amount calculation step from practically being performed in the human mind. The claim encompasses mentally calculating a deflection amount as part of the method.
The claim recites the limitations of calculating an approach time and exit time and time intervals. The limitation of calculating an approach time and exit time and time intervals, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. Nothing in the claim precludes the calculating an approach time and exit time and time intervals from practically being performed in the human mind. The claim encompasses mentally calculating an approach time and exit time and time intervals as part of the method.
The claim recites the limitations of calculating an amplitude amount of the first displacement data in each of the time intervals and calculating an amplitude amount of the deflection amount of the superstructure by each of the plurality of cars in each of the time intervals. The limitations calculating an amplitude amount of the first displacement data in each of the time intervals; calculating an amplitude amount of the deflection amount of the superstructure by each of the plurality of cars in each of the time intervals, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. Nothing in the claim precludes calculating an amplitude amount of the first displacement data in each of the time intervals; calculating an amplitude amount of the deflection amount of the superstructure by each of the plurality of cars in each of the time intervals from practically being performed in the human mind. The claim encompasses mentally calculating an amplitude amount of the first displacement data in each of the time intervals; calculating an amplitude amount of the deflection amount of the superstructure by each of the plurality of cars in each of the time intervals as part of the method.
The claim recites the limitations of calculating weighting coefficients to a respective car of the plurality of cars. The limitation of calculating weighting coefficients to a respective car of the plurality of cars, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. Nothing in the claim precludes calculating weighting coefficients to a respective car of the plurality of cars from practically being performed in the human mind. The claim encompasses mentally calculating weighting coefficients to a respective car of the plurality of cars as part of the method.
The claim recites the limitations of calculating a first deflection amount. The limitation of calculating a first deflection amount, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. Nothing in the claim precludes the first deflection amount calculation step from practically being performed in the human mind. The claim encompasses mentally calculating a first deflection amount as part of the method.
The claim recites the limitations of calculating a static response. The limitation of calculating a static response, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. Nothing in the claim precludes calculating a static response from practically being performed in the human mind. The claim encompasses mentally calculating a static response as part of the method.
The claim recites the limitations of providing measurement data. The limitation of providing measurement data, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. Nothing in the claim precludes providing measurement data from practically being performed in the human mind. The claim encompasses mentally providing measurement data as part of the method.
The claim recites the limitations of monitoring the railroad train and determining an abnormality. The limitation of monitoring the railroad train and determining an abnormality, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. Nothing in the claim precludes monitoring the railroad train and determining an abnormality from practically being performed in the human mind, because the claim encompasses mentally monitoring the railroad train and determining an abnormality.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
NO. The claim recites two additional elements: plurality of acceleration sensors and a processor.
This additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it is well known in the art to use plurality of acceleration sensors to observe and generate data for a structure.
The processor is recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing data (calculating amounts, values, intervals, coefficients, etc and providing data). This generic processor limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
NO. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element in the claim amounts to no more than using a generic acceleration sensor to observe and generate data for a structure. Thus it is not enough to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 14 depends on claim 13, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 14 is further recites the element(s) “the plurality of acceleration sensors configured to observe the plurality of observation points.”, which is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 14 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because this limitation(s) is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Regarding claim 15, the claim recites A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a measurement program for causing a computer to execute a process by a processor so as to perform the steps of:
generating first displacement data based on an acceleration as a response to an action on observation points in a plurality of regions of a railroad vehicle moving on a superstructure of a bridge, the acceleration corresponding to data output from a plurality of acceleration sensors, the plurality of acceleration sensors being installed at the plurality of observation points on the superstructure, respectively; generating observation information including an approach time and an exit time of the railroad vehicle with respect to the superstructure; calculating a deflection amount of the superstructure by a plurality of cars of the railroad vehicle based on an approximation formula of a deflection of the superstructure, the observation information, and the environmental information including a dimension of the railroad vehicle and a dimension of the superstructure generated in advance; calculating an approach time and an exit time of each of the plurality of cars with respect to the superstructure based on the observation information and the environmental information; calculating time intervals divided by a plurality of times obtained by sorting the approach times and the exit times of the plurality of cars with respect to the superstructure by time; calculating an amplitude amount of the first displacement data in each of the time intervals; calculating an amplitude amount of the deflection amount of the superstructure by each of the plurality of cars in each of the time intervals; calculating weighting coefficients to a respective car of the plurality of cars assuming that a sum of products of the amplitude amounts of the deflection amounts of the superstructure by plurality of cars in the time intervals and the weighting coefficients to the plurality of cars is equal to the amplitude amount of the first displacement data in the respective time intervals, calculating a first deflection amount of the superstructure by the railroad vehicle using a sum of products of the weighting coefficients to the plurality of cars and the deflection amounts of the superstructure by the plurality of cars; calculating a static response when the railroad vehicle moves on the superstructure based on the first displacement data and the first deflection amount; providing measurement data including the weighting coefficients with respect to the plurality of cars and the static response; and monitoring the railroad train and determining an abnormality of the superstructure based on the measurement data.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. The claim recites a program; therefore it is a process.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim recites the limitations of generating first displacement data. The generation limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. Nothing in the claim precludes the generating step from practically being performed in the human mind. The claim encompasses mentally generating first displacement data as part of the method.
The claim recites the limitations of an observation information generation step of generating observation information. The generation limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. Nothing in the claim precludes the generating step from practically being performed in the human mind. The claim encompasses mentally generating observation information as part of the method.
The claim recites the limitations of calculating a deflection amount. The limitation of calculating a deflection amount, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. Nothing in the claim precludes the deflection amount calculation step from practically being performed in the human mind. The claim encompasses mentally calculating a deflection amount as part of the method.
The claim recites the limitations of calculating an approach time and exit time and time intervals. The limitation of calculating an approach time and exit time and time intervals, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. Nothing in the claim precludes the calculating an approach time and exit time and time intervals from practically being performed in the human mind. The claim encompasses mentally calculating an approach time and exit time and time intervals as part of the method.
The claim recites the limitations of calculating an amplitude amount of the first displacement data in each of the time intervals and calculating an amplitude amount of the deflection amount of the superstructure by each of the plurality of cars in each of the time intervals. The limitations calculating an amplitude amount of the first displacement data in each of the time intervals; calculating an amplitude amount of the deflection amount of the superstructure by each of the plurality of cars in each of the time intervals, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. Nothing in the claim precludes calculating an amplitude amount of the first displacement data in each of the time intervals; calculating an amplitude amount of the deflection amount of the superstructure by each of the plurality of cars in each of the time intervals from practically being performed in the human mind. The claim encompasses mentally calculating an amplitude amount of the first displacement data in each of the time intervals; calculating an amplitude amount of the deflection amount of the superstructure by each of the plurality of cars in each of the time intervals as part of the method.
The claim recites the limitations of calculating weighting coefficients to a respective car of the plurality of cars. The limitation of calculating weighting coefficients to a respective car of the plurality of cars, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. Nothing in the claim precludes calculating weighting coefficients to a respective car of the plurality of cars from practically being performed in the human mind. The claim encompasses mentally calculating weighting coefficients to a respective car of the plurality of cars as part of the method.
The claim recites the limitations of calculating a first deflection amount. The limitation of calculating a first deflection amount, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. Nothing in the claim precludes the first deflection amount calculation step from practically being performed in the human mind. The claim encompasses mentally calculating a first deflection amount as part of the method.
The claim recites the limitations of calculating a static response. The limitation of calculating a static response, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. Nothing in the claim precludes calculating a static response from practically being performed in the human mind. The claim encompasses mentally calculating a static response as part of the method.
The claim recites the limitations of providing measurement data. The limitation of providing measurement data, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. Nothing in the claim precludes providing measurement data from practically being performed in the human mind. The claim encompasses mentally providing measurement data as part of the method.
The claim recites the limitations of monitoring the railroad train and determining an abnormality. The limitation of monitoring the railroad train and determining an abnormality, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. Nothing in the claim precludes monitoring the railroad train and determining an abnormality from practically being performed in the human mind, because the claim encompasses mentally monitoring the railroad train and determining an abnormality.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
NO. The claim recites two additional element: plurality of acceleration sensors and processor.
This additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it is well known in the art to use plurality of acceleration sensors to observe and generate data for a structure.
The processor is recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing data (calculating amounts, values, intervals, coefficients, etc and providing data). This generic processor limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
NO. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element in the claim amounts to no more than using a generic acceleration sensor to observe and generate data for a structure. Thus, it is not enough to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
US 20140067284 A1; Breed; David S. is an embodiment for structural monitoring.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARL F.R. TCHATCHOUANG whose telephone number is (571)272-3991. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am -5:00am.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Huy Phan can be reached at 571-272-7924. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CARL F.R. TCHATCHOUANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/ALVARO E FORTICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858